Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 26, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > 2009 > May (Web-only)Christianity Today, May (Web-only), 2009  |   |  
SPEAKING OUT
Few Red Flags Found in Sotomayor's Religion-Related Cases
President Obama's Supreme Court pick generally sided with religious freedom.




ADVERTISEMENT

The past, of course, is not always a predictor of the future. In her judicial roles, Sotomayor has been bound by U.S. Supreme Court rulings. She would not be the first on the Court to rule differently once given the freedom to do so.

However, there seem to be reasons for religious groups to hope that Sotomayor would be good news for religious freedom. She interprets the Constitution as limiting the entanglement of government and religion, even in the area of age discrimination where there are no explicit religious beliefs involved and regulation would be minimal. She gave deference to the individual's conscience when deciding what is a religious belief or practice. She appears to be somewhat permissive of governments allowing some religious holiday displays (and not others). Evangelicals may disagree with her positions on other issues or with her judicial philosophy, but Sotomayor's rulings on religion do not appear to be a major cause for concern.

Tobin Grant is an associate professor of political science at Southern Illinois University — Carbondale. He is coauthor of Expression vs. Equality: The Politics of Campaign Finance Reform and many academic articles on politics and religion.

Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today covers more political developments on the politics blog.

share this pageshare this page



E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: 

Displaying 1 - 3 of 15 comments.See all comments
Anna   Posted: June 03, 2009 10:48 PM
Okay, please don't confuse me with the other Anna. Where did the "fact" that this woman is a lesbian come from? I haven't heard it on the media. I would think that Obama wouldn't dare try to get a lesbian on the Supreme Court with the "war" going on right now with the marriage definition change. Does anybody know for sure. I would just like to know. My main concern as always is the abortion issue. No where in the Constitution is killing the unborn a guaranteed right for women. So, I would really like to know where she stands here first because if she is for the murder of the innocent than she is not constitutional, she is anti-constitutional and all her decisions will end up coming from this viewpoint. Who knows the answer to these two questions, sexual orientation and abortion view.

Jane   Posted: June 02, 2009 12:14 PM
Anna--Where in the world do you get your information?!?! Adam S is right--you are doing no one, especially us in the Christian community--any favors by propagating false information and outright lies, not only about Judge Sotomajor, but also President Obama. You may want to do a bit more research before you state such mistruths and exagerations. From everything I've read about Judge Sotomayor, I would be thrilled to have her on our supreme court.

Redfox   Posted: June 02, 2009 9:35 AM
I am naturalized US citizen. I emigrated to the US for economic reasons, but also in the conviction that this country believes (at least in theory) in the principle of fairness. How someone with a favorite ‘cause’ (gender, race, sexual orientation, gun control) can be regarded as more capable than someone who is not emotionally biased is a rather disturbing idea. I have always imagined that the interpretation of law is the role of Judges – not making of laws. Sad that people migrate in droves to this country, congregate in ethnic networks, and then whine about the way it is and what laws should be made to support their viewpoints. A Supreme Court judge should have a little more depth than what is required to represent us in traffic court – a depth that includes something more than gender and minority status. We should be convinced that a nominee will continue the unbiased support of our rights (especially those that have been tested again and again) in the absence of emotive bias

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search






















Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com